Vig
-
Posts
2,317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Vig
-
-
I watched that whole goddamned video waiting for her to jump off. So disappointing...
-
Spectrally, you've got some mud going on...too much 100-200 Hz. maybe even higher...I'd say you could use more midrange. For this style, another production think you should probably consider is recording more layers for the rhythm guitars, and adding reverb to the leads. it sounds a bit thin. and dry.
The arrangement is okay, but you could really do more with it.
NO
-
Once was one time too many for that voice sample. twice was painful. three times was a joke. The arrangement here is just way too straightforward, and the instrumentation is really dry and uninteresting. I love that you've tried this soundtrack, and I hope you keep at it because you've got some decent ideas, but you really need to add more to this tune. Why are there no drums?
NO
-
I'm not going to hold the samples against this tune.
I think the introduction is captivating, if somewhat..sparse. the body of the tune, starting at 1:00 or so i find less interesting. You've got the oboe and violin parts, which are both very busy, somewhat contrapuntal, but from that perspective, poorly written. There's a lot of linear overlap i.e. parallelism. To be honest, the writing doesn't sound very well-planned.
on the whole I find the arrangement to be somewhat divergent and spastic. I'm going to have to go
NO
-
I'd like to point out that this remix is even cooler when you play the original in the background.
In general, I'm very liberal with regard to what types of material usage I think should be allowed on the site. Even so, this remix makes me a bit uneasy.
1. It samples directly the most recognizable element of the original, and maintains it as the most central element to the tune.
2. The feel of the tune is similar, even though the tempo is not.
3. Arrangement-wise, this tune can come across as an update of the original.
However, I feel like the third concern is one I can look past, because the nature of the tune is very atmospheric, and within those bounds, there is an ample amount of new material, and there are plenty of original ideas.
Obviously the quality of this remix is fantastic. I'm inclined to votes YES because even though there's direct sampling and a similar vibe, there is plenty of creativity here, and the execution is fantastic. The main reason we have been so nervous about direct sampling in the past is that it has often been a crutch for weak remixes. I think we can all agree that is not the case here.
The use of samples from the original does not inherently make a remix unoriginal; there has simply been a strong correlation between the two. To disqualify this tune because of its direct sampling would be to miss the forest for the trees.
Passing this tune is the right decision, but you would all be wise to make note that doing so will set new precedent, and we should not allow this to open the flood gates for lesser remixes.
YES
-
A point of interest:
We used to be SOO much worse about this. Case in point: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2307
We would NEVER get away with talking like that now. Sure it was cathartic and fun, but it wasn't helpful to the remixer. Honestly though, one of the reasons you don't see stuff like that anymore is because the submissions that reach the panel (thanks to larry's bottomless supply of time and altruism) are much better these days. So if it seems like your mix is greeted roughly, you can all rest easy knowing that you guys totally rock the cock, even if your mix isn't passed.
-
I don't have an issue with direct sampling in principle, even extensive direct sampling, so long as it is done creatively. I feel like this track is more of an update. The first chunk of this arrangement is largely the same as the original with improved production. The second chunk is almost completely original save the chord progression. I don't think it would take a great deal of work to make this passable, but you've got to take the tune in your own direction more.
NO
-
Fantastic arrangement. Occasionally I'll hear a sample and cringe just a little bit, but it's never too bad. Nothing really to add; lets get a better encoding.
YES
-
This is one of my favorite soundtracks, and I really like your treatment. I'm sort of with larry though that it needs a bit more meat. This so far feels like a trailer for a larger piece. The dynamics are great, but it could use a more decisive climax. Please please keep developing, cause this track can be awesome, and you clearly have some great writing skills.
AMIRITE?
NO
-
forgive my procrastination on this one. June was an asslong time ago.
The piano intro didn't impress me...somewhat mechanical sequencing. Once the energy cranks up, the track becomes a lot more fun. I have to say it's in no way groundbreaking, but at the same time I can't really find any serious fault in the production.
I'm going to go along with andy and malcos in saying that the arrangement is a bit too straightforward.
NO
-
One major issue: The sequencing is very mechanical. Velocity and timing are rigid, and the performance does not seem particularly likely. It's fine to write piano parts that wouldn't be played by a pianist, but the tune seems to call for a more natural part. Humanize! You've also got a bunch of questionable notes, but my main concern is that there seem to be too many hands involved on this one piano. I'd say you're heading in a good direction, though.
NO
-
The low end sounds really big on my dyneaudio BM5As, which means it's going to sound fucking huge on anything else. Nonwithstanding, I absolutely love the sound design, atmosphere and arrangement. I haven't heard anything like this on OCR before. Well-concieved, well-executed.
I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this Remix.
-
Hmm...First thing that pops to mind is that the sequencing is over-quantized. I think the arrangement is great. but in addition to the quantization, the mix gets a bit boomy. you might do well to take a bit out of the 125-250 Hz range.
Keep at it, this is cool.
NO
-
Oh man, nothing makes a shiver run up my leg like the latest icecap mix. This tune opens really really weak. Those pads are soooo dull and the attack is way too slow. It gets a lot better once I can't hear the pad anymore. The solo programming reminds me of Protricity. The sound design in general is nothing to write home about, and the drum sequencing is pretty repetitive.
This tune has a couple great things going for it: The lead sequencing, and the overall energy. But you really need to keep the energy up with better sound design and overall arrangement.
NO
-
The instrumentation is ambitious, but is ultimately awkward. The chants are out of place and the sequencing somehow manages to feel rigid despite the quality of the samples. There's also plenty of headroom, so it should be normalized. The low end lacks, and needs to be boosted around 100 Hz. And that ending is terrible. Sorry, this one needs some more work.[/Vig]
NO (rework, resubmit)
Something like that. Although I'm not one to talk about headroom. I don't know shit about 2-mix compression.
My main problems with this track have to do with how the samples are used. Certain instruments just aren't sitting right. To be brief, but going through the whole track, I love the chorus, but that pan flute is a bit dull. The uillelellelelleiean pipe sounds really wierd and dry. Like it's sitting in a different space. It perhaps shouldn't be panned so hard? I would say that about a lot of instruments. You could really afford to brighten up this mix. Especially the strings and pipes. I'd definitely worry about that before fattening the bottom.
Yeah, those vocalesque things around 3:40 get a big ol' WTF from me. They don't make any goddamned sense. I think part of the problem is they are such obvious samples. The attacks are unnatural and the releases are cut short. Get rid of that nonsense.
NO
-
I have no problem with the performance or the arrangement. I even think the sax is recorded pretty well. Sounds good. What's completely killing this is the piano recording. What the hell is up with the attacks around :53? There's some distortion on the piano, it sounds boomy and dull, and it's mono. Can't you at least throw on a stereo reverb or something?
I realize this might be nitpicky, and I don't mind if this passes, but it would be so easy to make that piano sound so much better.
NO
-
Well-executed. Arrangement and orchestration is fine, if the samples sometimes sound the slightest bit cheesy. My biggest complaint is about the timing..especially when there are ritards or accellerandos, it sounds awfully mechanical. I would have liked to hear more, but it's close enough.
YES
-
Fantastic tune. Good sound design. I feel like there are sections where the balance is uncomfortably right-heavy. But on the whole this tune is great.
YES
-
This whole recording is sounding thin, and I don't just think it's because I'm listening on headphones..*listens to reference*...confirmed. It's not the headphones. You need more ass on this recording. The drums in particular could use bit more beef. To be fair, the drums sound like they are losing some detail due to MP3 compression.
Wow.. Those vocals are precious. Serious points for that section.
I was tempted to pass this cause the performances are tight, and the vocal section is fantastic. But I think between the EQ issues and the fact that the song is just about a minute and a half too long, I've got to say
NO
-
Oh man...the quiet pads are playing a minor third on a major chord at :59...this mistake is repeated . Why does that arpeggiated line cut out suddenly at 1:32? and then come back in a few seconds later? There are too many instruments introduced separately, they never have a chance to layer. There's a lot of crunch at times (like 3:02). THere's very little harmonic consideration given in the arrangement.
NO
And that minor 3rd appears EVERY TIME
-
I stomp on your boner.
-
How about OnlyCountingseconds Remix?
to be honest, I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that there isn't enough source usage here, but I think it's important to establish....again....that we shouldn't feel obligated to vote with stopwatches.
Does someone want to write a page and a half about that kickass bass tone?
-
From the decision andy cited:
Jesse's correct in that there's no explicit 50% rule, nor do I think we want to add one that would actually have judges resorting to stopwatches and basic addition to determine whether a mix complies.I appreciate your attempt at consistency and fairness. But in cases like this, there is clearly gray area which you guys don't agree with me on, and I think that's okay. I remember having a similar discussion about shinesparks, right? A jazz tune that spent a good chunk of the song soloing over the progression?
I don't feel like beating a dead horse, so I'll just say that contrary to my poorly placed sarcasm, I don't think it would be a disaster to reject this tune based on source usage requirements, but I think you guys, Andy in particular, are being the slightest bit ridiculous claiming that yes votes are 'Invalid" because we disagree on this issue. I think it would be fine to just let the voting continue and let it stand. No one should need to write any more term papers on this track.
-
In any case, I don't see how this song is an easy call one way or another, despite what Jesse might think.
I'll note that if this passes, I will really start to reconsider how I judge songs that only use the chord progression.I apologize for the flippant tone of my first post. I misjudged the tone of the discussion. I do not actually think that this should be an easy decision.
*NO* Legend of Zelda 'Link's Labyrinth'
in Judges Decisions
Posted
I'd just like to add that I think the main sonic problem here is overcompression. Exhibit A: Anytime the kick does the fast triplets, you can hear everything else getting squished in time with the kick. It's just really crushed.
afk